Kuroneko wrote:

MekongMouse wrote:Look, it is pretty clear we have different definitions of abuse. The difference is that the overwhelming majority of the democratic world agrees with mine. You can try to dress up abuse all you want, but this is just one more example of why the prostitution industry needs to be legalized and regulated. Then we wouldn't have to just hope that every pimp, er, bar owner was an honest individual and argue morality... but you wouldn't want that, would you? That might put a dent in your friend's fee racket, huh?

The overwhelming majority of the democratic world does not agree with you, as much of the so called "democratic world" wishes to make prostitution illegal rather than "legalise and regulate", for example:

10 Reasons for Not Legalizing Prostitution Coalition Against Trafficking in Women International (CATW)

1. Legalization/decriminalization of prostitution is a gift to pimps, traffickers and the sex industry.

2. Legalization/decriminalization of prostitution and the sex industry promotes sex trafficking.

3. Legalization does not control the sex industry. It expands it.

4. Legalization increases clandestine, hidden, illegal and street prostitution.

5. Legalization of prostitution and decriminalization of the sex industry increases child prostitution.

6. Legalization of prostitution does not protect the women in prostitution.

7. Legalization of prostitution increases the demand for prostitution. It boosts the motivation of men to buy women for sex in a much wider and more permissible range of socially acceptable settings.

8. Legalization of prostitution does not promote women’s health.

9. Legalization of prostitution does not enhance women’s choice.

10. Women in systems of prostitution do not want prostitution legalized.

http://www.isha.org.il/eng/docs/p180/

Personally I don't agree with the above discourse, but would go for decriminalisation not legalisation, and as I mentioned in my last post legislation is already being implemented to protect sexworker rights in Cambodia. Of this legislation Yoshiteru Uramoto, ILO Regional Director for Asia-Pacific said "Cambodia’s efforts are ground-breaking, reaching into a sector where most governments fail to provide adequate protection."
http://ilo.org/global/about-the-ilo/new ... /index.htm

I was saying the majority of people in democratic countries support the LABOR STANDARDS I support. I know this by virtue of these laws existing in all 1st world countries and many developing countries. Why should prostitutes be treated differently than any other worker?

MekongMouse wrote:

Kuroneko wrote:

MekongMouse wrote:Look, it is pretty clear we have different definitions of abuse. The difference is that the overwhelming majority of the democratic world agrees with mine. You can try to dress up abuse all you want, but this is just one more example of why the prostitution industry needs to be legalized and regulated. Then we wouldn't have to just hope that every pimp, er, bar owner was an honest individual and argue morality... but you wouldn't want that, would you? That might put a dent in your friend's fee racket, huh?

The overwhelming majority of the democratic world does not agree with you, as much of the so called "democratic world" wishes to make prostitution illegal rather than "legalise and regulate", for example:

10 Reasons for Not Legalizing Prostitution Coalition Against Trafficking in Women International (CATW)

1. Legalization/decriminalization of prostitution is a gift to pimps, traffickers and the sex industry.

2. Legalization/decriminalization of prostitution and the sex industry promotes sex trafficking.

3. Legalization does not control the sex industry. It expands it.

4. Legalization increases clandestine, hidden, illegal and street prostitution.

5. Legalization of prostitution and decriminalization of the sex industry increases child prostitution.

6. Legalization of prostitution does not protect the women in prostitution.

7. Legalization of prostitution increases the demand for prostitution. It boosts the motivation of men to buy women for sex in a much wider and more permissible range of socially acceptable settings.

8. Legalization of prostitution does not promote women’s health.

9. Legalization of prostitution does not enhance women’s choice.

10. Women in systems of prostitution do not want prostitution legalized.

http://www.isha.org.il/eng/docs/p180/

Personally I don't agree with the above discourse, but would go for decriminalisation not legalisation, and as I mentioned in my last post legislation is already being implemented to protect sexworker rights in Cambodia. Of this legislation Yoshiteru Uramoto, ILO Regional Director for Asia-Pacific said "Cambodia’s efforts are ground-breaking, reaching into a sector where most governments fail to provide adequate protection."
http://ilo.org/global/about-the-ilo/new ... /index.htm

I was saying the majority of people in democratic countries support the LABOR STANDARDS I support. I know this by virtue of these laws existing in all 1st world countries and many developing countries. Why should prostitutes be treated differently than any other worker?

Exactly and as I was saying for the THIRD TIME LEGISLATION IS ALLREADY BEING IMPLEMENTED TO THAT ENDS :

I mentioned in my last post legislation is already being implemented to protect sexworker rights in Cambodia. Of this legislation Yoshiteru Uramoto, ILO Regional Director for Asia-Pacific said "Cambodia’s efforts are ground-breaking, reaching into a sector where most governments fail to provide adequate protection."
http://ilo.org/global/about-the-ilo/new ... /index.htm

Kuroneko wrote:

MekongMouse wrote:

Kuroneko wrote:

MekongMouse wrote:Look, it is pretty clear we have different definitions of abuse. The difference is that the overwhelming majority of the democratic world agrees with mine. You can try to dress up abuse all you want, but this is just one more example of why the prostitution industry needs to be legalized and regulated. Then we wouldn't have to just hope that every pimp, er, bar owner was an honest individual and argue morality... but you wouldn't want that, would you? That might put a dent in your friend's fee racket, huh?

The overwhelming majority of the democratic world does not agree with you, as much of the so called "democratic world" wishes to make prostitution illegal rather than "legalise and regulate", for example:

10 Reasons for Not Legalizing Prostitution Coalition Against Trafficking in Women International (CATW)

1. Legalization/decriminalization of prostitution is a gift to pimps, traffickers and the sex industry.

2. Legalization/decriminalization of prostitution and the sex industry promotes sex trafficking.

3. Legalization does not control the sex industry. It expands it.

4. Legalization increases clandestine, hidden, illegal and street prostitution.

5. Legalization of prostitution and decriminalization of the sex industry increases child prostitution.

6. Legalization of prostitution does not protect the women in prostitution.

7. Legalization of prostitution increases the demand for prostitution. It boosts the motivation of men to buy women for sex in a much wider and more permissible range of socially acceptable settings.

8. Legalization of prostitution does not promote women’s health.

9. Legalization of prostitution does not enhance women’s choice.

10. Women in systems of prostitution do not want prostitution legalized.

http://www.isha.org.il/eng/docs/p180/

Personally I don't agree with the above discourse, but would go for decriminalisation not legalisation, and as I mentioned in my last post legislation is already being implemented to protect sexworker rights in Cambodia. Of this legislation Yoshiteru Uramoto, ILO Regional Director for Asia-Pacific said "Cambodia’s efforts are ground-breaking, reaching into a sector where most governments fail to provide adequate protection."
http://ilo.org/global/about-the-ilo/new ... /index.htm

I was saying the majority of people in democratic countries support the LABOR STANDARDS I support. I know this by virtue of these laws existing in all 1st world countries and many developing countries. Why should prostitutes be treated differently than any other worker?

Exactly and as I was saying for the THIRD TIME LEGISLATION IS ALLREADY BEING IMPLEMENTED TO THAT ENDS :

I mentioned in my last post legislation is already being implemented to protect sexworker rights in Cambodia. Of this legislation Yoshiteru Uramoto, ILO Regional Director for Asia-Pacific said "Cambodia’s efforts are ground-breaking, reaching into a sector where most governments fail to provide adequate protection."
http://ilo.org/global/about-the-ilo/new ... /index.htm

You're kind of thick, aren't you? I think this legislation is great. Full legalization would be better. Why do you think this is necessary though? Is it because this industry is as rosy as you describe it? Maybe, just maybe this legislation exists because of the problems I've been pointing out. Use your head; I get tired having to dumb things down for people.

MekongMouse wrote:You're kind of thick, aren't you?

Oh the irony! So you now have to resort to hurling insults because someone challenges your rather bigoted perspective of hostess bars. I could well understand your view if you were a supporter of someone like Sheila Jeffreys, but you profess to support prostitution per se.
While I accept that mal practice is common in the sex industry the hostess bars in Phnom Penh offer some of the better working conditions. The girls are generally happy with their environment and if not they leave and go to another bar. Bars are always on the lookout for new girls.

MekongMouse wrote: I think this legislation is great. Full legalization would be better.

The 2008 Law on Suppression of Human Trafficking and Sexual Exploitation act while punishing the trafficking of people, the managing of prostitutes and the maintaining of a brothel, and soliciting. does not outlaw the mere act of exchanging sex for money.

Article 24: Soliciting
A person who willingly solicits another in public for the purpose of prostituting himself or herself shall be punished with imprisonment for 1 to 6 days and a fine of 3,000 to 10,000 riel.
A minor shall be exempted from punishment of the offense stipulated in this article.

Article 25: Definition of Procuring Prostitution
The act of procuring prostitution in this law shall mean:
(1) drawing a financial profit from the prostitution of others;
(2) assisting or protecting the prostitution of others;
(3) recruiting, inducing or training a person with a view to practice prostitution;
(4) exercising pressure upon a person to become a prostitute.
http://www.no-trafficking.org/content/L ... nglish.pdf

I accept that "bar fines" can be interpreted as illegal and is a "grey area" that is also utilised in Beer Gardens and KTV's where a customer will ask permission to take out a girl if he "suitably remunerates" the owner. To be completely above board hostess bars could have a policy of no barfines and that no ladies are allowed to leave with customers as are many establishments in Japan for example. This would not be a problem for many of the girls and customers although some would be less happy.

MekongMouse wrote:
Why do you think this is necessary though? Is it because this industry is as rosy as you describe it? Maybe, just maybe this legislation exists because of the problems I've been pointing out.

I am not saying the "industry" as a whole is "rosy" far from it. I am saying that hostess bars in Phnom Penh offer some of the the better working conditions. And already stated the girls are generally happy with their environment and if not they leave and go to another bar. Bars are always on the lookout for new girls. How many adverse working practices or "abused staff" have you come across in the Phnom Penh hostess bars? The "abuse" if any comes from unscrupulous customers that ply the girls with excessive alcohol and making them ill.

Of course legislation is necessary in all industries to protect workers against employers and provide a fair platform for both. It recently has been enacted in the garment industry and now it is being enacted for the "entertainment industry" here. Its enacted because some but not all places do not come up to acceptable standards and of course this applies to acceptable disciplinary procedures also.

MekongMouse wrote:Use your head; I get tired having to dumb things down for people

I know the feeling!

Kuroneko wrote:

MekongMouse wrote:You're kind of thick, aren't you?

Oh the irony! So you now have to resort to hurling insults because someone challenges your rather bigoted perspective of hostess bars. I could well understand your view if you were a supporter of someone like Sheila Jeffreys, but you profess to support prostitution per se.
While I accept that mal practice is common in the sex industry the hostess bars in Phnom Penh offer some of the better working conditions. The girls are generally happy with their environment and if not they leave and go to another bar. Bars are always on the lookout for new girls.

MekongMouse wrote: I think this legislation is great. Full legalization would be better.

The 2008 Law on Suppression of Human Trafficking and Sexual Exploitation act while punishing the trafficking of people, the managing of prostitutes and the maintaining of a brothel, and soliciting. does not outlaw the mere act of exchanging sex for money.

Article 24: Soliciting
A person who willingly solicits another in public for the purpose of prostituting himself or herself shall be punished with imprisonment for 1 to 6 days and a fine of 3,000 to 10,000 riel.
A minor shall be exempted from punishment of the offense stipulated in this article.

Article 25: Definition of Procuring Prostitution
The act of procuring prostitution in this law shall mean:
(1) drawing a financial profit from the prostitution of others;
(2) assisting or protecting the prostitution of others;
(3) recruiting, inducing or training a person with a view to practice prostitution;
(4) exercising pressure upon a person to become a prostitute.
http://www.no-trafficking.org/content/L ... nglish.pdf

I accept that "bar fines" can be interpreted as illegal and is a "grey area" that is also utilised in Beer Gardens and KTV's where a customer will ask permission to take out a girl if he "suitably remunerates" the owner. To be completely above board hostess bars could have a policy of no barfines and that no ladies are allowed to leave with customers as are many establishments in Japan for example. This would not be a problem for many of the girls and customers although some would be less happy.

MekongMouse wrote:
Why do you think this is necessary though? Is it because this industry is as rosy as you describe it? Maybe, just maybe this legislation exists because of the problems I've been pointing out.

I am not saying the "industry" as a whole is "rosy" far from it. I am saying that hostess bars in Phnom Penh offer some of the the better working conditions. And already stated the girls are generally happy with their environment and if not they leave and go to another bar. Bars are always on the lookout for new girls. How many adverse working practices or "abused staff" have you come across in the Phnom Penh hostess bars? The "abuse" if any comes from unscrupulous customers that ply the girls with excessive alcohol and making them ill.

Of course legislation is necessary in all industries to protect workers against employers and provide a fair platform for both. It recently has been enacted in the garment industry and now it is being enacted for the "entertainment industry" here. Its enacted because some but not all places do not come up to acceptable standards and of course this applies to acceptable disciplinary procedures also.

MekongMouse wrote:Use your head; I get tired having to dumb things down for people

I know the feeling!

I really don't know who you're arguing with because you don't seem to be addressing anything I'm saying. Also, full legalization is not the legalization of an act, but then criminalization of the industry. That is exactly what allows women to slip through the cracks. Is your point that Cambodia has full legalization? It obviously doesn't.

My only point when jumping into this thread is that prostitutes should be treated equally to any other worker; to have the same legal protections as any other worker, which they dont.

I have no comment on how fair PP bar owners are to Pattaya or wherever. That isn't important. The question is whether they are adhering to basic labor standards. If they are docking pay for cell phone usage or attempting to stop the girl from leaving through false debts, they are not adhering to basic labor standards. If they are adhering to basic labor standards, I have no issue with them. How can I be clearer?

In any case, you seem to have evolved from your previous position and agree with me now that better labor standards are necessary, so that is good.

General Mackevili wrote:She shouldn't be paid to be on her phone, period.

My contract that I'm working on right now states I will be fired without warning if I'm on my phone when I'm not supposed to be (in the classroom).

I'd rather they just dock my pay. However, I knew the rules when I started so have no complains.

You are missing the big picture...

She isn't just not paid, she is fined an amount in excess of the pro rata rate. For example she talks on the phone while customers are wanting her company for call it 30min. She is paid call it $5.00usd a day, ten hour day. That's ,50cents an hour. So her fine should be .25cents. However, as you well know by now, it far exceeds .25cents.

Second point you continue to jump on, the "rules" agreed to should be the controlling factor. So if she agreed to get the barang to "buy her out" of said bar, and he refuses, the created and illegal debt falls back on her in some worlds, I assume yours? Now she owes the "bar" something like $300.usd? and should accept that, make payments with the unknowing guy's kindness(money) as the months roll along?

Absurd in my world, both counts above, but we are just asking for clarification.

MekongMouse wrote: My only point when jumping into this thread is that prostitutes should be treated equally to any other worker; to have the same legal protections as any other worker, which they dont.

And I agree and my point was that the new legislation is effectively offering the same legal protections as any other worker, and while things have been slow which is to be expected as this is a third world country, nevertheless progress has been made.

I think the issue was you originally joined in this thread in support of the op NT and got "tarred with the same brush"

MekongMouse wrote: I don't know why you're all ganging up on NT here. Anyone who thinks you can dock pay for talking on their phone is fucked. The level of control bar managers have over the women who work there is incredible and illegal fining is a prime example. I don't think that contradicts that some bargirls get rich, but are you all honestly saying that docking pay over disciplinary issues - a practice illegal in most developed countries - is okay?

People were ganging up on him because of his clearly misplaced perspectives on hostess bars and attempting to claim some moral high ground by exaggerating adverse conditions in hostess bars and assuming that conditions prevalent in Thailand are the same as here. Then going on to berate Jah Steu for imagined work practice misdemeanours. However this is not in consideration for the girls but for his own selfish ends. For example.

NokTang wrote: I never said girls didn't make a decent living sitting in bars hustling lady drinks and never going with customers. It's you and others who seem to not only condone it, but participate in it. That's not why they are there IMHO. If she isn't ready, willing, and able to go on a barfine date at a reasonable price she is in the wrong business and venue and doesn't deserve "lady drinks". I hope that sinks in? Doubt it.

As for your infatuation with 7/11 girls, again, what can we say to please you? You meet a girl you like in a 7/11. You ask her her name. She smiles and giggles and tells you. You give her your phone number, she calls you. You arrange to meet her outside of work when she's off duty. She shows up. You take her to a noodle stand or typical Thai restaurant(if she's hungry which said workers normally aren't as they eat off the shelves) and then head back to your condo. She comes in, somewhat shy and afraid of being seen but comes in never the less. You give her a peck on the neck followed by a sniff kiss and she rips your shorts down and begins stroking the little fella. You unbutton her duty shirt(hopefully she's got it on as very seductive) and away you go. You figure out the rest. After it's all done, you slip her 500baht plus any taxi fare you estimate and out she goes..

In my books seducing a shopgirl then treating her as a common prostitute even to the extent of giving her little money is far more despicable than running a hostess bar.

For example and referring to Jah Steu

NokTang wrote: Another thoughtful reply. If I didn't know better, I'd think you were running a legitimate business. However, we are talking about a house of prostitution where the workers aren't legally employed with rights and most important, taking of earned wages via "fines" is not only illegal but out and out theft and worse IMHO. You are taking what they have earned rather than paying them what they have earned and letting them go on their merry way. Using the threat of not paying wages against an obviously poor and usually impoverished person is disgusting in my world, NokWorld.

The hypocrisy is frightening!
Comparing a so called house of prostitution where workers aren't legally employed to a hostess bar is clearly ridiculous. The business is of course legitimate, all business's have licences displayed and girls have timecards etc. and know the penalties for infringements of their terms of contract.

MekongMouse wrote:
I have no comment on how fair PP bar owners are to Pattaya or wherever. That isn't important. The question is whether they are adhering to basic labor standards. If they are docking pay for cell phone usage or attempting to stop the girl from leaving through false debts, they are not adhering to basic labor standards. If they are adhering to basic labor standards, I have no issue with them. How can I be clearer?

It appears from what NL says that in Thailand basic labour standards are not adhered to as well as they are here, and as far as I am aware no specific laws governing the "night entertainment" sector exist in Thailand to the extent they do here.

MekongMouse wrote:
In any case, you seem to have evolved from your previous position and agree with me now that better labor standards are necessary, so that is good.

I have always supported labour standards, particularly with respect to sexworkers and in fact liaised with the Cambodian Women's Development Association quite a bit when working on sexworker health issues back in the '90's. My point about disciplinary action was to explain rather than condone actions. I noted that the majority of hostess bars are Khmer owned and that while in the west worker "fining systems" have long been outlawed they have been prevalent here until recently and although now illegal the practice does persist. Now it is usually the loss of bonus that is the disciplinary action rather than a fine. However disciplinary action is an unfortunate necessity and penalties are usually written into the contract or explained at the onset of employment. So girls know what to expect prior to infringements.

MekongMouse wrote: I really don't know who you're arguing with because you don't seem to be addressing anything I'm saying. Also, full legalization is not the legalization of an act, but then criminalization of the industry. That is exactly what allows women to slip through the cracks. Is your point that Cambodia has full legalization? It obviously doesn't.

Not sure what your saying here "full legalization is not the legalization of an act, but then criminalization of the industry" Full legalisation equates to criminalisation of the industry?
What measures are you suggesting be put in place? Does the 2008 Law on Suppression of Human Trafficking and Sexual Exploitation act not cover it? "Pimping" , soliciting and running a house of prostitution are criminalised however prostitution per se is not.
What would constitute "full legalisation"?

Kuroneko wrote:
Comparing a so called house of prostitution where workers aren't legally employed to a hostess bar is clearly ridiculous. The business is of course legitimate, all business's have licences displayed and girls have timecards etc. and know the penalties for infringements of their terms of contract.

You are making a distinction which has no difference. To gloryify a "hostess" or "gogo" bar with this stuff is beyond the pale of common sense. All three are houses of prostitution, the brothel, the "hostess bar" and the "gogo bar". The only reason to prop one or the other up is the hypocritical conduct you are accusing me of. I'm in touch with the reality of the scenes. However, here we sit some many pages later without your down to earth answer....do you believe in buying girls out of hostess/gogo "bars" since that was their terms of "contract" laughable as that term in our context is?

I have read this and consider this debate ridiculous.